Rarewares "Oggenc2.85using aoTuVb5.7" vs. venc.exe "aoT |
  |
Rarewares "Oggenc2.85using aoTuVb5.7" vs. venc.exe "aoT |
 Oct 5 2010, 14:53
Post
#1
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 152 Joined: 2-May 07 Member No.: 43131  |
Did a conversion with both with the same settings but the results are different. Aren't they supposed to be the same since they oggenc uses aoTuVb5.7?
Edit: Didn't expect the title to be truncated without a notice. Originally the title was: "Rarewares "Oggenc2.85using aoTuVb5.7" vs. venc.exe "aoTuV Beta 5.7" different results" This post has been edited by mzso: Oct 5 2010, 14:57 |
 |
 
|
|
Oct 5 2010, 21:30
Post
#2
|
|
 Group: FB2K Moderator Posts: 2359 Joined: 30-November 07 Member No.: 49158 |
How much different is different? When dealing with lossy codecs using complex math, even a different compiler or its settings can result in tiny changes in the output file.
-------------------- Full-quoting makes you scroll past the same junk over and over.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 5 2010, 22:18
Post
#3
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 152 Joined: 2-May 07 Member No.: 43131 |
QUOTE (Yirkha @ Oct 5 2010, 21:30)  How much different is different? When dealing with lossy codecs using complex math, even a different compiler or its settings can result in tiny changes in the output file. I don't know. I just used foobars's bitcompare tool, which told me that the differences start at 0.4687755 s. I also looked at them with TC's bitcompare tool but that didn't help much since the length is a little bit different, I'm guessing different metadata. But the data seems to start and end the same bits by looking at them. What better tool could I compare them? This post has been edited by mzso: Oct 5 2010, 22:54 |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th June 2013 - 08:02 |
